7 U.S.C. § 5

Findings and purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Findings

The transactions subject to this chapter are entered into regularly in interstate and international commerce and are affected with a national public interest by providing a means for managing and assuming price risks, discovering prices, or disseminating pricing information through trading in liquid, fair and financially secure trading facilities.

(b) Purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to serve the public interests described in subsection (a) through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission. To foster these public interests, it is further the purpose of this chapter to deter and prevent price manipulation or any other disruptions to market integrity; to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to this chapter and the avoidance of systemic risk; to protect all market participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets; and to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants.

(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, § 3, as added Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title I, § 108], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–383.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 5, acts Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, § 3, 42 Stat. 999; June 15, 1936, ch. 545, § 2, 49 Stat. 1491; Pub. L. 97–444, title II, § 203, Jan. 11, 1983, 96 Stat. 2298, stated legislative findings, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(5) [title I, § 108], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–383.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1932–2025 · leading case: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982). · cites it 2× “999 , codified as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 5 . [90] See, e. g., n. 11, supra.”

Dunn v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 519 U.S. 465 (1997). · cites it 2× “' " 7 U. S. C. § 5 (emphasis added). Had Congress meant to maintain the Commission's distinction, we would not have expected the Legislature to use the words "in" and "involving" loosely in the same sentence to refer to futures, which the CFTC informs us are transactions "in"…”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc., a California Corp. Harold D. Goldstein & Michael Bradley Krivacek, 680 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “These values were specifically recognized by Congress in Section 3 of the Grain Futures Act of 1922 and in Section 3 of the Commodity Exchange Act ( 7 U.S.C. § 5 ). Speculators *585 and manipulators, however, did get into the market and did cause rapid and widespread price…”

Prime Int'l Trading Ltd. v. BP PLC, 937 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2019). “to ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to this chapter.”); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 33 26 (2012) (noting that a statute’s enumerated statement of purpose is relevant when interpreting a text).”

Loginovskaya v. Batratchenko, 764 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2014). “See 7 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added). Particularly when a vast amount of investment in the United States commodities markets emanates from abroad, including sovereign wealth funds, “all market participants” must mean all, without restriction to participants who engage in domestic…”

Effex Capital, LLC v. Nat'l Futures Ass'n, 933 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2019). “7 U.S.C. § 5 (b). The Commodity Exchange Act serves these public interests "through a system of effective self-regulation of trading facilities, clearing systems, market participants and market professionals under the oversight of the Commission.”

In Re Nat. Gas Commodity Litig., 337 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “See 7 U.S.C. § 5 . The Court recognizes that the allegations of Plaintiffs’ claim against Reliant are based entirely on the FERC report, which concluded that Reliant did no *523 legal wrong.”

In re Sentinel Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 728 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2013). “” 7 U.S.C. § 5 (b). In order to further these aims, the CEA requires that the “money, securities, and property [belonging to clients] shall be separately accounted for and shall not be commingled with the funds of such commission merchant.”

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 195 F. Supp. 3d 996 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “7 U.S.C. § 5 (b). The purpose of the CEA, then, is broader than the purpose of the securities laws examined by the court within the context of Sullivan & Long.”

Harvey R. Miller, as Tr. in Bankr. of Ira Haupt & Co., a Ltd. P'ship, Bankrupt v. New York Produce Exch., 550 F.2d 762 (2d Cir. 1977). “The District Court instructed the jury that Haupt owed a duty to act with reasonable care in maintaining the integrity of the market and that, if its own acts or omissions were a proximate cause of its injuries, it could not recover. Measuring this charge by whether it best…”

Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289 (1973). “prices," 7 U. S. C. § 5 , Congress, to regulate "futures" transactions, passed the "Grain Futures Act," 42 Stat.”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Equity Fin. Grp. LLC, 572 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2009). “” 7 U.S.C. § 5 (b). The specific provisions governing commodity pool operators are directed toward regulating activities involving the solicitation of funds.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.